I think it is well worth reading. Of course, it is quite sensible, so the elected (insert pejorative of choice here) won’t be instituting any such policies.

Excerpt:

In 2008 America, after going through the shock of September 2001 — memorialized as “9/11” and signaling the launching of a new phase in the emerging war of survival between militant Islam and the West, was hit in 2008 with three more 9/11s, within three months: (1) soaring oil prices that topped $4 per gallon, thus swelling the coffers of countries whose national interests substantially differ from those of the United States; (2) Russia’s sneak invasion of Georgia, invoking a justification — protection of ethnic kin under foreign rule, extending Russian control over energy supplies from the Caspian Basin, en route to Europe, that transit south of Russia; and (3) the credit freeze that triggered calamitous collapse in financial markets and threatened total global financial meltdown.

Absorbing any of these blows is a daunting challenge. Coping with a trifecta, on top of a continuing set of conflicts stemming from the first 9/11 and its aftermath, strains the resources even of a superpower. And all these challenges come at the very time we have a new administration taking power come January, facing a trillion-dollar federal budget deficit. Read the rest here.

My analysis of the article: We’re in very deep shit, and Roto-Rooter is nowhere in sight.

Yeah, I know I should be staying away from the cookies because my figure isn’t going to be mistaken for an anorexic unless I don’t eat for (I refuse to speculate about how many) months, but the grandkids will be staying the day after Christmas and the weekend, so what am I gonna do? Make them suffer? I don’t think so!

Update: Both my daughter and former daughter-in-law called to ask if they could bring the kids over to make cookies this (past) weekend. As I had been busy with work, I had not even gone Christmas shopping yet and so had to (unhappily) decline! My house still isn’t decorated, but the Christmas shopping is done and the whirlwind cleaning frenzy is one, since I’m hosting Christmas dinner and the long-neglected house is getting some past due attention!

West Lafayette, IN – December 17, 2008 – A new study in the Review of Agricultural Economics compares fast food and table service meals at restaurants. Results show that both are larger and have more calories than meals prepared at home, with the typical fast food meal being smaller and having fewer calories than the average meal from a table service restaurant.

James K. Binkley of Purdue University used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, which is the most recently available large sample of information regarding nutritional intake, to analyze fast food, table service restaurant meals, and meals prepared at home.

Fast food was found to be more energy dense than food from a table service restaurant. However, Binkley found that fast food meals tend to be smaller. Consequently, the typical fast food meal had fewer calories than the average meal from a table service restaurant, whether the diner is an adult, teenager, or child.

But, the study found that table service diners are more likely to reduce their food consumption during the rest of the day than are those eating at fast food restaurants, most likely because of the difference in energy density. As a result, fast food may ultimately result in more calories.

Perhaps the most surprising result of the study was the finding that fast food had the largest effects for adults, and that children’s caloric intakes were greatest when they ate at table service restaurants.

“It is misleading to focus concerns about the nutritional effects of increased food away from home primarily on fast food. All food away from home should be considered,” Binkley concludes. Source: